June 29, 2007

NYTimes book reviewer Michiko Kakutani didn't skewer the reactionary new book by Andrew Keen -- remember Keen? he's the guy who called Lawrence Lessig an "intellectual property communist." Wow. I guess that makes Keen sort of the Christopher Hitchens of Silicon Valley...

(Re: "Tubes" -- anyone remember the name of the Republican Senator who publicly referred to the Internet as a "bunch of tubes"?)

You have to wonder if there is a design behind the fact that The New York Times review
of Andrew Keen’s “The Cult of the Amateur” was published on the same
day as the arrival of the iPhone—a day when nearly all other tech news
will be drowned out completely.

The controversial (at least in Silicon Valley) book that argues
against the egalitarian user-generated party known as Web 2.0 was
assigned to Michiko Kakutani, the infamous reviewer known for laying
the guts of many an author on the side the road to be pecked
mercilessly by media vultures slowly in the hot sun of publishing hell.

But Kakutani spares Keen (pictured right) the normal vitriol and
lauds the book with a relatively positive review. Kakutani said, “Although
Mr. Keen wanders off his subject in the later chapters of the book — to
deliver some generic, moralistic rants against Internet evils like
online gambling and online pornography — he writes with acuity and
passion about the consequences of a world in which the lines between
fact and opinion, informed expertise and amateurish speculation are
willfully blurred.” In Kakutani-speak that translates into “give this book a try.”

Ugh. Ready for a fight? Here we go, via Stephen C. Rose Up Close and Personal:

Rarely does a book review convince me that this is a book I need not read.

The book is called The Cult of the Amateur -- How Today's Internet is Killing our Culture. The author is one Andrew Keen.

Nothing
against him. Such a book had to be written. It reflects the
unanalytical bias of thoughtless critics everywhere. Web-bashing is as
superficial and easy and idiotic as Ann Coulter. Sorry to be so blunt.

My
suspicion is that my reaction is aided by the participation of the
actual NYTimes review. The headline reads "The Roar of the Herd is
Deafening on the Web".

The irony is that everything is going to
the Web. So brickbats of all sorts are being thrown at an inevitable
tide. Without much attention to what is actually there or how things
actually develop.

The irony too is that the facts cited in the
review, if they be true, argue not for a herd but for a modest-sized
group which has always been with us -- those who seek to influence
search results by tactics ranging from the nefarious to the legitimate.

This is not a herd. These folk do not roar.

And:

The
argument that the Web is being overrun by amateurs is patently absurd
to anyone who uses the Web as I do, for serious inquiries.

The
implied reverence for some other sort of research venue leads straight
to academe where the deficiencies are too numerous to set in opposition
to the cliches that propel the thinking in this book.

A simple example is the field of New Testament study. Vastly better with the resources now available online.

The
degree of herd thinking in the world out there is reflected online but
what else is new. It is all a spectrum and you can find whatever you
are looking for.

If anything, I believe that an amateur like
myself has as tough a time online as off gaining access to dialogue
with so-called experts. But at least online there is a chance to find
an appropriate forum or podcast. Comments are a viable means of
communication too.

What I believe gets ignored is the fact that generations on the Web last about five years.

I
remember a stupendously good site about Francis Bacon that existed in
the 90s but is NO MORE. Terrible. I remember a wonderful online
presentation of the life of Kelly Miller Smith. NO MORE.

Does this mean the sky is falling? That the thundering hoofbeats of the Nietzschean mob are drawing nigh? Not in the least.

Like
a giant mixing bowl, the Web yields new versions all the time and the
accomplishments are on balance an improvement because on the Web you
can see the warts and do something about them.

What this book is
about is simply what Foucault and before him Jesus observed -- in
essence that nothing is doomed to remain secret, unexposed. Discourse
will have its day ad nauseaum. This denouement is embarrassing
but it is human and the purpose of the Web is to move to Hamlet's
things I could tell you, to movement beyond the idiocies of the past.

The
roar of the herd is an interesting thought. What is the herd? Who
actually drives it? What lies behind the evocation of a herd? Are herds
in the eye of the beholder? Or the auditor?

If we are dealing
with the Web, relax. This is our home now and in the years to come. The
more time elapses, the more expertise and analysis will surface and by
their fruits they shall be known.

Comments

NYTimes book reviewer Michiko Kakutani didn't skewer the reactionary new book by Andrew Keen -- remember Keen? he's the guy who called Lawrence Lessig an "intellectual property communist." Wow. I guess that makes Keen sort of the Christopher Hitchens of Silicon Valley...

(Re: "Tubes" -- anyone remember the name of the Republican Senator who publicly referred to the Internet as a "bunch of tubes"?)

You have to wonder if there is a design behind the fact that The New York Times review
of Andrew Keen’s “The Cult of the Amateur” was published on the same
day as the arrival of the iPhone—a day when nearly all other tech news
will be drowned out completely.

The controversial (at least in Silicon Valley) book that argues
against the egalitarian user-generated party known as Web 2.0 was
assigned to Michiko Kakutani, the infamous reviewer known for laying
the guts of many an author on the side the road to be pecked
mercilessly by media vultures slowly in the hot sun of publishing hell.

But Kakutani spares Keen (pictured right) the normal vitriol and
lauds the book with a relatively positive review. Kakutani said, “Although
Mr. Keen wanders off his subject in the later chapters of the book — to
deliver some generic, moralistic rants against Internet evils like
online gambling and online pornography — he writes with acuity and
passion about the consequences of a world in which the lines between
fact and opinion, informed expertise and amateurish speculation are
willfully blurred.” In Kakutani-speak that translates into “give this book a try.”

Ugh. Ready for a fight? Here we go, via Stephen C. Rose Up Close and Personal:

Rarely does a book review convince me that this is a book I need not read.

The book is called The Cult of the Amateur -- How Today's Internet is Killing our Culture. The author is one Andrew Keen.

Nothing
against him. Such a book had to be written. It reflects the
unanalytical bias of thoughtless critics everywhere. Web-bashing is as
superficial and easy and idiotic as Ann Coulter. Sorry to be so blunt.

My
suspicion is that my reaction is aided by the participation of the
actual NYTimes review. The headline reads "The Roar of the Herd is
Deafening on the Web".

The irony is that everything is going to
the Web. So brickbats of all sorts are being thrown at an inevitable
tide. Without much attention to what is actually there or how things
actually develop.

The irony too is that the facts cited in the
review, if they be true, argue not for a herd but for a modest-sized
group which has always been with us -- those who seek to influence
search results by tactics ranging from the nefarious to the legitimate.

This is not a herd. These folk do not roar.

And:

The
argument that the Web is being overrun by amateurs is patently absurd
to anyone who uses the Web as I do, for serious inquiries.

The
implied reverence for some other sort of research venue leads straight
to academe where the deficiencies are too numerous to set in opposition
to the cliches that propel the thinking in this book.

A simple example is the field of New Testament study. Vastly better with the resources now available online.

The
degree of herd thinking in the world out there is reflected online but
what else is new. It is all a spectrum and you can find whatever you
are looking for.

If anything, I believe that an amateur like
myself has as tough a time online as off gaining access to dialogue
with so-called experts. But at least online there is a chance to find
an appropriate forum or podcast. Comments are a viable means of
communication too.

What I believe gets ignored is the fact that generations on the Web last about five years.

I
remember a stupendously good site about Francis Bacon that existed in
the 90s but is NO MORE. Terrible. I remember a wonderful online
presentation of the life of Kelly Miller Smith. NO MORE.

Does this mean the sky is falling? That the thundering hoofbeats of the Nietzschean mob are drawing nigh? Not in the least.

Like
a giant mixing bowl, the Web yields new versions all the time and the
accomplishments are on balance an improvement because on the Web you
can see the warts and do something about them.

What this book is
about is simply what Foucault and before him Jesus observed -- in
essence that nothing is doomed to remain secret, unexposed. Discourse
will have its day ad nauseaum. This denouement is embarrassing
but it is human and the purpose of the Web is to move to Hamlet's
things I could tell you, to movement beyond the idiocies of the past.

The
roar of the herd is an interesting thought. What is the herd? Who
actually drives it? What lies behind the evocation of a herd? Are herds
in the eye of the beholder? Or the auditor?

If we are dealing
with the Web, relax. This is our home now and in the years to come. The
more time elapses, the more expertise and analysis will surface and by
their fruits they shall be known.